Thakur Das Shyam Sunday v. Addl. CIT

93 ITR 27High Court1974#21634 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23C)Section 11Section 12Section 12AASection 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145A

Issues it is cited on

section 256(2)colourable devicesection 2(15)section 149registration under section 12aliable to taxsection 12aasection 132(4)section 12asection 12section 139search and seizure

Judgments citing Thakur Das Shyam Sunday v. Addl. CIT

Sourabh Agrotech Private Limited, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: MS Alka Gautam, CIT (Through
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…keep the amounts in a separate bank account, the "dharmada" amount could not be held to be part of price. The assessee holds the amount in trust. The Supreme Court approved the cases of the Allahabad High Court in Thakur Das Shyam Sunday vs. Addl. CIT (1974) 93 ITR 27(All) (FB) and of the Punjab High Court in CIT vs. GheruLal Bal Chand (1978) 111 ITR 134(P&H) and followed its earlier authority in CIT vs. Tollygunge Club Ltd. (1977) 107 ITR 776 (SC) and confirmed the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 76 ITR 194(All) . The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nathu Ram Shiv…

Saurabh Agrotech Private Limited, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 711/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: MS Alka Gautam, CIT (Through
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…keep the amounts in a separate bank account, the "dharmada" amount could not be held to be part of price. The assessee holds the amount in trust. The Supreme Court approved the cases of the Allahabad High Court in Thakur Das Shyam Sunday vs. Addl. CIT (1974) 93 ITR 27(All) (FB) and of the Punjab High Court in CIT vs. GheruLal Bal Chand (1978) 111 ITR 134(P&H) and followed its earlier authority in CIT vs. Tollygunge Club Ltd. (1977) 107 ITR 776 (SC) and confirmed the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 76 ITR 194(All) . The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nathu Ram Shiv…

Ritika Vegetable Oil Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Against The Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Central Circle, Alwar [ For Short Ao].

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 92BSection 92C

…keep the amounts in a separate bank account, the "dharmada" amount could not be held to be part of price. The assessee holds the amount in trust. The Supreme Court approved the cases of the Allahabad High Court in Thakur Das Shyam Sunday vs. Addl. CIT (1974) 93 ITR 27(All) (FB) and of the Punjab High Court in CIT vs. GheruLal Bal Chand (1978) 111 ITR 134(P&H) and followed its earlier authority in CIT vs. Tollygunge Club Ltd. (1977) 107 ITR 776 (SC) and confirmed the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bijli Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1970) 76 ITR 194(All) . The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nathu Ram Shiv…

M/S. D.J. Malpani vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik

C.A. No.-005282-005282 - 2005Supreme Court09 Apr 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 11ASection 173QSection 4

…ta High Court and held that the “surcharge was not part of the price for admission but made for the specific purpose of being applied to local charities”. It observed “the admission to the enclosure is the occasion and not the consideration for the 7 93 ITR 27 8 (1977) 2 SCC 790 : (1977) 107 ITR 776 Page 10 of 18 surcharge taken from the race-goer. It rejected the contention that the payment was involuntary, observing “that does not render the payment of the surcharge involuntary, because it is out of his own volition that he seeks admittance to the enclosure”. Applying the above decisions to the case…

Thakur Das Shyam Sunday v. Addl. CIT (93 ITR 27) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax